16:02:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pointerevents
16:02:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-irc
16:02:11 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Meeting: PEWG
16:02:14 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Chair: Patrick H. Lauke
16:02:38 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6246bc85-4dae-43a8-a50c-9bc5a0829585/20231206T110000/
16:02:47 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Scribe: Patrick H. Lauke
16:02:55 <Patrick_H_Lauke> ScribeNick: Patrick_H_Lauke
16:03:23 <Patrick_H_Lauke> TOPIC: Clarify mousedown event target if the preceding pointerdown event listener removes the target https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/492
16:03:40 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+ flackr
16:03:43 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+ mustaq
16:03:45 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
16:06:15 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: this still needs tests, and will likely need spec changes, but we've not determined which
16:06:33 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: we had a test, but it may need further tweaking (need to check what the click target is)
16:06:45 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: there's multiple things that need to be tested about this
16:06:58 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: yes, at one point we were missing the click target, just checking if that's still the case
16:07:17 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: not just click target on removal, but if you remove and re-add, it could be the node itself
16:07:23 <mustaq> https://wpt.fyi/results/pointerevents?label=experimental&label=master&aligned&q=interleaved.tentative.html
16:07:51 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: i think these are the tests, and they include re-adding. not sure if we are testing re-adding... the appended test includes re-adding. does it include click target?
16:08:21 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: if you look at line 117, it tests click target
16:08:37 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: i think WPT wise we are fine. do we need any spec change?
16:08:55 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: probably. don't think this is spelled out
16:09:11 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: looking at your summary (https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/492#issuecomment-1823553102) i think point 1 is covered
16:09:52 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: 2 needs some work (UI Events doesn't mention pointer events)
16:10:11 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: 3 is default state unless you have special handling, but wouldn't hurt to have a note. doesn't need normative change
16:10:54 <Patrick_H_Lauke> patrick: do we know what we want, broadly, for points 2 and 3?
16:11:15 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: tricky because we're talking about click target in UI Events spec, not PE spec. do we move to PE spec?
16:11:32 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: similar to our mention of compatibility events, which is basically an amendment of UI Events spec...
16:11:53 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: the "common ancestor" term only appears in UI Events...
16:11:58 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: and it's handwaved there
16:12:18 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: think it's reasonable for PE spec to say the target of click events is determined by the target of the pointer events
16:12:45 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: "common ancestor" is only mentioned in UI events spec. should UI events spec link back to PE spec?
16:13:59 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: i guess, even that link may not be necessary. PE spec can have a section specifically overriding/respecifying behaviour. common ancestor determined from pointerdown and pointerup events when using PE spec. then say usually this will be the same as UI events spec ... unless it's removed ...
16:16:05 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: i'd be careful linking from UI events to PE for something as generic as "common inclusive ancestor"
16:16:26 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: but want to make sure that if somebody looks at UI events, they don't overlook this wrinkle
16:16:54 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rob: if you feel a non-normative note would be helpful
16:16:55 <Patrick_H_Lauke> mustaq: i can give it a try
16:17:42 <Patrick_H_Lauke> ACTION: Mustaq to work on changes to PE spec to cover points 2 and 3 of Rob's latest summary https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/492#issuecomment-1823553102
16:17:58 <Patrick_H_Lauke> TOPIC: Clarify pointerleave and pointerout events when first pointer move after removing an element under the pointer https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/477
16:19:08 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: wondering generally what we need to do here
16:20:25 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: we landed spec change that explains the rough model...
16:20:34 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Mustaq: we still need a WPT for shadow dom
16:21:28 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: closing the issue then, added a comment about needing WPT
16:21:33 <mustaq> Chrome supports this behavior now as an experimental web platform feature, so we now have one impl technically.
16:21:36 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Mustaq: let me add a comment about Chrome support
16:22:58 <Patrick_H_Lauke> TOPIC: Implicit release of pointer capture on DOM removal doesn't match touch-events https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/486
16:24:23 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Mustaq: does TE spec mention DOM changes at all
16:25:06 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: I think TE spec is very handwavy
16:25:20 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: I thought we agreed that it's ok for PE and TE to diverge
16:25:24 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Mustaq: sure, just wanted to check
16:25:41 <Patrick_H_Lauke> https://w3c.github.io/touch-events/
16:26:26 <Patrick_H_Lauke> [confirming that the spec has no specifics]
16:26:55 <flackr> https://w3c.github.io/touch-events/#event-touchend
16:27:13 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: in touchend and touchmove it says the target must be the same target as when screen was first touched
16:27:27 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: that's all it has to say, doesn't mention DOM changes etc
16:28:35 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: ... in my view the whole area is under-specified
16:29:44 <flackr> Note in mouse event order implies this https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#events-mouseevent-event-order
16:29:53 <flackr> "If the event target (e.g. the target element) is removed from the DOM during the mouse events sequence, the remaining events of the sequence MUST NOT be fired on that element."
16:30:46 <mustaq> https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-eventtarget-dispatchevent%E2%91%A2
16:34:09 <Patrick_H_Lauke> [looking further into specs]
16:35:02 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: but for this issue, i think it's ok to accept that because TE is so underspec'd, it's ok for PE to have different target compared to TE, since browsers can't seem to agree on the target for TE's anyway (when nodes get removed)
16:35:19 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: should probably also open a new issue for boundary events (in the UI Events spec ?)
16:35:29 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Mustaq: safe to say we can close issue, or remove WPT?
16:36:05 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: i think we're good on this issue...
16:36:35 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: we have a test for the PE side, so we're good
16:36:46 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: ok ... closing then?
16:36:49 <Patrick_H_Lauke> [all agree]
16:37:48 <Patrick_H_Lauke> TOPIC: Meta-issue: update WPT to cover Pointer Events Level 3 https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/445
16:38:26 <mustaq> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues?q=label%3Aneeds-wpt
16:40:36 <Patrick_H_Lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pulls?q=label%3Aneeds-wpt+
16:42:17 <Patrick_H_Lauke> https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/356
16:44:52 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Rob: https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/pull/490 i added a test, removing label
16:46:25 <Patrick_H_Lauke> ACTION: continue reviewing which PRs/issues need WPT
16:46:38 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick: thank you all, we'll reconvene in 2 weeks' time
16:46:46 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:46:54 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:46:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-minutes.html Patrick_H_Lauke
16:48:13 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present- smaug
16:48:21 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:48:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-minutes.html Patrick_H_Lauke
16:48:55 <Patrick_H_Lauke> rrsagent, bye
16:48:55 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-actions.rdf :
16:48:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mustaq to work on changes to PE spec to cover points 2 and 3 of Rob's latest summary https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/492#issuecomment-1823553102 [1]
16:48:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-irc#T16-17-42
16:48:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: continue reviewing which PRs/issues need WPT [2]
16:48:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-pointerevents-irc#T16-46-25